What about Alan Turing? Isn't it enough that the British state is responsible for oppressing and chemically castrating one of their national heroes? Would their treatment of him had somehow been less evil had he chosen not to kill himself?
Isn't it enough that the British state is responsible
Safe to say that for me, I find your comments unclear.
let's recap. Here's how the thread started.
This may in fact be true, but this claim is leveled with the implication that MIT is responsible for his death.
-pkfrank
You're the second comment on the thread
No one else bears any responsibility for his death.
from that I infer (and I think most people would as well) that you don't think MIT has any responsibility in the matter. Furthermore, because of the terseness of your comment (there's no qualification or explanation) your comment reads like an almost absolute claim that when someone commits suicide no one else ever bears any responsibility. That's why I asked for clarification.
Here you acknowledge that the British state bears responsibility for oppressing and chemically castrating Turing. But would you say the British state has no responsibility for his suicide?
I don't think they're responsible for his suicide himself. They're responsible for putting him in a miserable situation where he likely had no other escape, but their responsibility would not be diminished had Turing chosen to suffer through it.
I find that to be a weird nitpick. Most people would say the state that's responsible for his miserable situation is also responsible for his suicide to some degree.
Furthermore, IMO, this thread probably isn't the place to pursue your jihad about the semantics of the word responsibility.
that's a black and white view of the world. One that I also don't think would hold up to the slightest logical scrutiny.
Can we delve into your comment a bit. Is your claim that when someone commits suicide that no else ever bears any responsibility for their death?